Is Speaking of Addiction in Terms of Sin Illuminating or Dangerous - Essay Example

?Is Speaking of Addiction in Terms of Sin Illuminating, Dangerous, or Both? When Christians speak of sin, it is connected to a duty to obey God and is therefore different from secular moral reasoning (Delkeskamp-Hayes, 2007). Therefore secular moral reasoning on the subject of addiction is informed by science and the perception that addiction is a disease which is beyond the addict’s control. There is a tendency to ignore ethical considerations and this might include a recognition that addiction is unpredictable and the risks to society may be too high. As a result, it might to worthwhile considering balancing economic benefits with the risk of harm to consumers and their families (Cook, 2006). For Christians, abstinence and “temperance” are the only acceptable types of behaviour with respect to the consumption of addictive substances (Cook, 2006). Applying this reasoning to addiction is illuminating because it establishes boundaries in which addiction can be judged. It is dangerous only because it does not recognize the scientific pathology of addiction. Scientifically, addiction is a disease and unless the addict seeks the appropriate therapeutic treatment, the addict has no control over his or her craving for the addictive substance (Cook, 2006). As such, the addict cannot control his or her consumption and cannot abstain. Moreover, an addict who has fully recovered from his or her addiction will be complying with Christian tenets if he/she practices temperance but would be acting in a manner inconsistent with Scientific standards. These scientific standards dictate that temperance would create the addiction all over again. Theological definitions of addiction place it squarely in the realm of sin. One such definition perceives addiction as “the inability to say no because of captivity to pathological desires” (Myers, 2001, p. 89). It can be assumed that the pathological desires as cravings and/or dependency. Based on this definition, addiction is a sin since it indulges and forces pathological desires. From a purely theological perspective , this definition of addiction particularly when understood in biblical teachings. In this regard, biblical teachings inform that it is a sin to over-indulge and to consume more than is necessary. Another biblical representation of the sin of addiction is the belief that addiction runs counter to the requirement to “limit consumption based on need and to distribute the goods equitably” (Myers, 2001, p. 89). Aligning addiction with sin based on biblical teachings is illuminating because it points to the necessity of flexibly interpreting the bible so that addiction can be understood in biblical contexts. It is dangerous because it seeks to place addiction in biblical contexts that do not contemplate addiction to either illegal or illicit substances. For instance, aligning addiction with sin on the basis that it is against the will of God because there is a need for the fair distribution of goods implies that the substance addicted to is good. Many of the substances addicted to such as tobacco, unlawful drugs and alcohol are not good for human health on both a spiritual and physical level. Regardless, using the fair distribution of goods as a basis for aligning addiction with sin can be misleading and this may be dangerous for theologians’ attempt to validate religious standards. Augustine’s view is perhaps more illuminating in that according to Augustine, human evil originates out of the “self-imposed, radical bondage of the will” (Harkins, 2008, p. 185). According to Harkins (2008) in the Augustinian tradition, sin is perceived not only as “a cause of suffering” but also “in response to it” (p. 185). Therefore sin is: ...a tragically structured vulnerability of the human condition, including our vulnerability to various forms of psychopathology (Harkins, 2008, p. 185). Harkins (2008) raises a number of questions for exploring whether or not one can truly align addiction with sin. The suggestion that addictive items, such as alcohol, gambling and internet pornography arise out of commercial greed and depend on its ability to tempt and therefore tap into the desire of human beings bring us back to the doctrine of original sin in which man is by nature vulnerable to sin. In this regard, the alignment of addiction with sin is entirely illuminating because it involves an examination of human weakness and the theological wisdom behind the doctrine of original sin. Luther and Erasmus’ debate over the doctrine of original sin and its consequences for the human free will also sheds some light on the propriety of aligning addiction with sin. In this regard, Erasmus defined free-will as a “power in the human will” to choose “those things which lead unto eternal salvation, or turn away from the same” (Luther 2009, p. 52). This definition of free will implies that, human beings can choose to forego the risk of addiction by abstaining from items that can become addictive. The debate between Luther and Erasmus further reveals that addiction can be seen as a manifestation of the origins of sin in that man is free to indulge human nature and in doing so can become enslaved to Satan (Kolb, 2005). In this regard, if man makes the choice to indulge in addictive items, man is choosing to become enslaved by Satan. McCormick’s (1989) alignment of addiction with sin is particularly illuminating because it captures the social, scientific and spiritual realities of addiction. According to McCormick (1989) addiction usually begins with a desire to escape pain and suffering and typically catapults into the main source of pain and suffering. The individual then becomes enslaved or entirely dependent on the item that he or she is addicted to and when this happens, the addiction evolves into a form of idolatry (McCormick, 1989). In this regard, the addict is committing a sin in turning away from God and putting some other element ahead of God. This is reminiscent of Harkins (2008) argument that addiction creates a disconnect in that addict is entirely disconnected from his external world and in becoming disconnected is also alienated from God. Mercadante’s (1996) theological explanation of addiction is particularly illuminating because it considers mediating factors such as victimisation and biology. According to Mercadante (1996) addiction can be an involuntary genetically inherited condition. In this case, the addict cannot be accused of sinning, although the addiction represents a turning away from God. Likewise, an individual may accidently consumer an addictive item and become involuntarily addicted. In these cases, what may have begun as a sinless episode, can turn into sinful conduct. It is the choice that the addict makes that constitutes the sin. For example, the addict can choose to seek salvation and embrace spiritual healing to recover from the addiction. On the other hand, the addict can choose to indulge the addiction, in which case the addiction becomes a sin (Mercadante, 1996). In other cases, individuals who are the victims of some form of physical abuse may choose to escape suffering by becoming addicted to substances. In such a case, the victim has made a conscious chose to turn away from spiritual healing and thus God (Mercadante, 1996). Therefore the victim has made a conscious choice to become enslaved by addiction when spiritual healing is always available. Mercadante (1994) argues that addiction is commonly viewed as a disease and there is a tendency to avoid the moral aspect of addiction. For instance, addicts who seek help and recovery will rarely admit to having sinned and instead will speak of addiction in terms of illness admitting that they were sick. Scientific experts and others take the position that speaking of addiction in terms of sin and morality is unduly “harsh, judgmental, self-righteous, lacking in compassion” (Mercadante, 1994, p. 221). In other words, addiction is seen as an illness with the emphasis on genes, the brain, “conditioning” or “psychological predilection” with little or no emphasis on “will, morality, character, or offending God” (Mercadante, 1994, p. 221). What is often forgotten in the perspective that addiction is an illness, is the doctrine of original sin and what it means for man’s free will. For example Trigg (1984) argues that there is a correlation between “the concept of sin and that of freedom” (p. 191). In this regard, Trigg (1984) informs that in “European thought”, “there is a powerful tradition” in which the “idea of moral evil” is linked to “human freedom” (p. 191). Trigg (1984) goes on to state: Only with a broadening of consciousness, with the awareness of alternative possibilities, did man become able to choose between good and evil, and was responsible for that choice (p. 191). This link is a consequence of the doctrine of original sin in which consuming the fruit of “knowledge of good and evil” conferred upon “man the ability to sin” (Trigg, 1984, p. 191). This provided mankind with the knowledge of choices between good and evil and the freedom to make that choice (Trigg, 1984). Looked at from the perspective of the doctrine of original sin, man can freely choose to ignore the temptations that lead to addictive behaviour or take the risk of addiction. This reasoning may apply to individuals who inherit addictive traits and those who find their social and economic conditions unbearable. For these individuals exercising free choice to turn away from temptations that lead to addiction may be more difficult than for individuals who are not vulnerable to temptation and addiction. Nevertheless the juxtaposition of addiction with sin is illuminating because it calls upon individuals to take some responsibility for their addiction and choices that lead to addiction. When addiction is segregated from sin and described in purely biological terms as a disease for which the addict is not responsible there is a danger that individuals will exercise far less restraint in the face of temptations that can lead to addiction. A paradox is created in which the theological attitude toward addiction as sin and the secular attitude that addiction is a disease. The theological attitude may be viewed as contrary to the will of God whereas the secular view may be seen as consistent with the will of God. For example, Stan (2010) points out that in linking Kierkegaard’s concept of “human otherness” to Christian tenets, human beings are instructed to love they neighbour as one would love the self (p. 349). Thus the Christian belief that addiction is sin and therefore calls upon the addict to take responsibility for his or her addiction may be seen as uncaring. In this regard, aligning addiction with sin may be dangerous. On the other hand, the secular world’s tendency to be sympathetic toward addicts and to treat it as an illness may be more consistent with the Christian requirement of loving others as one would love the self. Muller (2007) however, cautions against giving into modernity and secular concepts of morality. Both the secular world and theology have contradicting ideas and concepts of morality. The best approach for theology is to go back to the original tenets of sin and to adhere to its constructs. In this regard, contradictions and misconceptions will be avoided (Muller, 2007). In this regard, the rational approach is to look at addiction in terms of the exercise of free will. Mankind has the freedom to choose and with that freedom comes the knowledge that certain behaviour is decidedly harmful. Man can therefore choose to indulge these behaviours or abstain from these behaviours. For the individual who accidentally becomes addicted, or who becomes addicted by virtue of a biological condition, the individual can always seek redemption by undergoing treatment to overcome the addition. In this regard, the alignment of addiction with sin is illuminating because it can help believers modify behaviour in ways that are beneficial to society as a whole. On the other hand, when addiction is aligned with sin, it has a capacity to ignore situations in which an individual may be prescribed medication for managing pain. If that individual subscribes to the doctrine of original sin and freedom of choice, he or she may make a decision to refuse medical treatment for fear of addiction. In doing so, the individual may have to necessarily avoid medical treatment that will be excessively painful in the absence of pain medication. In this regard, aligning addiction with sin can be dangerous. Therefore in the final analysis, when addiction is perceived in terms of sin, it can be both illuminating and dangerous, although for the most part it is illuminating. When addiction is perceived as sin, it is illuminating because it requires taking responsibility for one’s decisions and the consequences that can flow from those decisions. Therefore from the perspective of the non-secular world, the only responsible approach to the risk of addiction is moderate indulgence or complete abstinence. For the secular world, addiction is purely scientific and thus out of the control of the individual addict. When the two perspectives are compared, speaking of addiction in terms of sin is more illuminating because it provides practical solutions for avoiding addiction while the secular world basically accepts that addiction cannot be avoided. Bibliography Cook, C.C.H. (2006). Alcohol, Addiction and Christian Ethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Delkeskamp-Hayes, C. (2007). “Sin and Disease in a Post-Christian Culture: An Introduction.” Christian Bioethics: Vol. 13:1-5. Harkins, J. W. (2008). “Psychopathology, Sin, and Evil – A Case Study of ‘The Disconnected/Unplugged Man’”. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, Vol. 10/3: 183-210. Kolb, R. (2005). Bound Choice, Election and Wittenberg Theological Method: From Martin Luther to the Formula of Concord. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Luther, M. (2009). The Bondage of the Will. Digireads.com Publishing. McCormick, P.T. (1989). Sin as Addiction. Paulist Press. Mercadante, L. A. (1996). Victims and Sinners: Spiritual Roots of Addiction and Recovery. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. Mercadante, L.A. (1994). “Sin, Addiction and Freedom.” In, Chop, R. S. (Ed.), Reconstructing Christian Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress. Muller, D. (2007). “The Original Risk: Overtheologizing Ethics and Undertheologizing Sin.” Christian Bioethics, Vol. 13: 7-23. Myers, C. (2001). “Beyond ‘The Addict’s Excuse’: Sin, Public Addiction, and Ecclesial Recovery”, in Park, A. S. and Jelson, S. L. (eds.), The Other Side of Sin: Woundedness from the Perspective of the Sinned-Against. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Stan, L. (June 2010). “A Reconsideration of Kiekegaard’s Understanding of Human Other: The Hidden Ethics of Soteriology”. Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 38(2): 349-370. Trigg, R. (June 1984). “Sin and Freedom.” Religious Studies, Vol. 20(2): 191-202. Read More